The Hipocrits of Socialism/communism

[Tkinter1]

I would like to know who claims left wing, but lives right. Im talking about all the communist revolutionaries (lol) who live in capitalist countries, work capitalist jobs and enjoy capitalist lives, But talk left. Be honest! And don't give me im to young and can't move to a communist/socialist country, because your not going to and you know it.
And on another topic, who are you fighting against? I always here America is the evil empire. You make it seem like theres really an evil empire out to bring famine and sorrow to the rest of the world, and its up to the communists to come back AGAIN and bring light to the world.

[PunkRawker677]

Something very similar as this post has already been done and debated.. anyone got a link?

[kidicarus20]

1. In a capitalist country you have to submit yourself to it or you die. You must get a job or you starve to death. In a capitalist country, you can't be a true communist, capitalism doesn't allow it. Even if we wanted to accquire land and turn it into a communist commune, you would have to "buy" the land from the capialist or probably rent it.
And then probably get crusehd because you dont have the resources, the capitalists do.

2. Of course one could live a leftist life and live in a capitalist country, the problem is when he becomes excessive and buys things he doesn't need, drives a car that destorys the environment, is lazy (like most capitalists) and drives instead of walks to work or buys things he just doesn't need.

3. There really isn't a true anarcho-syndicalist society to go to. And we can't just move to sweden or cuba and start living, too hard.

4. This is actually a rightist claim, "Jello biafra is successful because of capitalism and private property" "rage against the machine is capitalist because they sell cd's" etc...


Better questioning would be, "Are you being excessive?" "Are you doing what you can for socialism?" etc...


Personally I am a hypocrite in the sense that i play video games a lot, that are run by capitalists, i used to skate and shit, but now i'm lazy and video games also take away from study time. that's the only thing i do that i dont need to be doing that i can think of

[Xvall]

"I would like to know who claims left wing, but lives right."

I am, and will always be, a Left-Winger. I don't live 'right'. You can't 'live' a political status.

"Im talking about all the communist revolutionaries (lol) who live in capitalist countries, work capitalist jobs and enjoy capitalist lives, But talk left. Be honest!"

Do I have a choice? Would you prefer me to starve myself and not live? We have to work to live. It doesn't matter what country you live in. You can still be a Left-Winger. With this logic, everyone who lived in the Soviet Union was 'socialist'. This is not true. That logic would also mean that everyone in Nazi Germany was a Nazi. Which is also not true.

"And don't give me im to young and can't move to a communist/socialist country, because your not going to and you know it."

I am too young to move. And no Communist country exists. I don't think a real socialist one exists either. I am not going to, you're right. What good is a communist revolutionary in an already communist country? The revolution will be here, so I must remain here for now.

"And on another topic, who are you fighting against? I always here America is the evil empire. You make it seem like theres really an evil empire out to bring famine and sorrow to the rest of the world, and its up to the communists to come back AGAIN and bring light to the world."

America isn't Evil. America is a mass of two continents. The United States government however is corrupt. And yes, revolution will hopefully bring things back to peace, and help the proletariot. We fight against exploiters. We don't hate Americans. Half of us live in America.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 3:29 am on July 25, 2002)

[Guest]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 3:26 am on July 25, 2002
"Im talking about all the communist revolutionaries (lol) who live in capitalist countries, work capitalist jobs and enjoy capitalist lives, But talk left. Be honest!"

Do I have a choice? Would you prefer me to starve myself and not live? We have to work to live. It doesn't matter what country you live in. You can still be a Left-Winger. With this logic, everyone who lived in the Soviet Union was 'socialist'. This is not true. That logic would also mean that everyone in Nazi Germany was a Nazi. Which is also not true.

No, that is a totally different logic. If you lived in the Soviet Union you really didn't had a choice to move somewhere else. As an American you are free to travel and exit the country whenever you desire to do so. In the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany this wasn't really an option.

[Guest]

Why should anybody else in society be forced to support another? So you have to produce for yourself or die; try not being a parasite for once and you might realize true freedom doesn't come through compulserary service to a society that demands it. There is nothing wrong with the fact that you are resposible for your own survival, unless you think you are incapable.

[Lardlad95]

Guest your a dick.

Heres a question for you what kind of just system is based on people being poor?

If there were no poor capitalism would fail sounds pretty evil to me

[Guest]

Capitalism only represents a system where individuals have the right to own what they have created/developed. Owning what you have created doesn't involve the poor. If people are stupid and chose to spend their lives demanding of others, instead of helping themselves, it isn't the fault of those who don't sacrifice themselves. Keeping you individuality is a right no number of rich or poor people can take or give, only yourself. Socialism does nothing but bring everyone to the same level through altruism of the individuals in the society. If everyone is equal you have done nothing but make everyone as poor as the sickest beggar or drug addict, take your choice, "it is all the SAME."

[marxistdisciple]

What crap! That's the usual uneducated arguement "socialism makes everyone poor."
Socialism makes everybody equally rich, but not excessively so. Everyone will have everything they need, and some things that will make their life better, but no one will have a ridiculously unequal share like they do now.

You talk about people not having to support others. In that case you must agree that people without jobs should be left to starve to death. Your house doesn't burn down a lot, so you shouldn't have to pay for the fire service with your taxes right? Also, you never break any laws, and you live in a nice area, so why should you pay for the police force? You can't argue those kind of things, they affect everybody.

I suppose you must also agree that we should not help starving people or people in situations they can't help. Homeless people should be left to rot, they had choices. drug addicts should be left to kill themselves, countries left to destroy each other with wars, it doesn't affect you.

Of course, that isn't true. Anything that inflicts pain on some part of humanity is related to you, albeit through a complex chain. If you don't understand that, think of September 11th. People flew planes into american buildings, which might not have been america's fault, but it certainly was dues to the west's negligance. These people came from a country with nothing, nothing at all. Not even food. That does tend to make people desperate.

We here are in a situation where we have the ability to provide for poorer countries, and we choose not to. sooner or later that will come back and bite us in the ass again, except next time it will be worse.

[Michael De Panama]

By "capitalist job", are you simply referring to bourgeois jobs? I don't know many communists who control capital. I would think that these would be the people who fear that communism will knock them down. These people don't benefit from communism.

And by "capitalist country", are you referring to any country on the face of the fucking Earth that isn't totalitarian? Because, let me tell you, I'd rather take capitalism than totalitarianism any day. But if there was a country that was Democratic Marxist, I'd be living there right now. I'm the first one to tell you I would not want to live in China or somewhere like that. I'd much rather be in America. That doesn't mean I'd much rather have American capitalism than a true, communist democracy.

And by "capitalist lives", are you referring to investing in the Dow, sipping a latte, and walking around with a briefcase? Is this the life of a capitalist you're talking about? I don't know many people who call themselves commies who do this.

[reagan lives]

I've been away too long if Commies are getting away with shit like this.

"In a capitalist country you have to submit yourself to it or you die."

And yet, here you are. I suppose we should learn a lesson from the long and storied history of political dissent and civil disobedience in Communist nations. Tiennaman Square comes to mind.

"Of course one could live a leftist life and live in a capitalist country, the problem is when he becomes excessive and buys things he doesn't need, drives a car that destorys the environment, is lazy (like most capitalists) and drives instead of walks to work or buys things he just doesn't need."

You are a moron. Not only did you say everything in that sentence twice, but you defined your political beliefs in terms of strictly apolitical things such as luxury, environmentalism, and laziness. If this is the state of the American left, I say bring on the Revolution.

"And we can't just move to sweden or cuba and start living, too hard."

And this guy just said that "most capitalists" are lazy.

"With this logic, everyone who lived in the Soviet Union was 'socialist'. This is not true."

Of course it's not, why do you think the gulags existed? The difference is that in a capitalist society, you can dissent. You can lay about and not have a job and live on the street or in your mother's basement. You have the choice, the freedom, to starve. You also have the freedom to go out and get everything you can. Or anywhere in between. There is no such freedom in communism.

"If there were no poor capitalism would fail sounds pretty evil to me"

Back that statement up. Prove it.

"Socialism makes everybody equally rich, but not excessively so."

Typical stupidity, defining things like "rich" and "poor" in such concrete terms. Your mind can't conceive of the words meaning anything other than how much money one has in one's bank account. Rich and poor are fundamentally degrees of independence. The rich are "rich" not because they have a lot of paper with Presidents on it, but because they are independent and therefore have more choices. The poor are "poor" not because they don't have a lot of said paper, but because their lack of it renders them dependent upon someone else and thereby limits their choices. In communist systems, everyone is by definition dependent, and choices are externally limited. Everyone is poor because independence has been surrendered.

"You talk about people not having to support others. In that case you must agree that people without jobs should be left to starve to death. Your house doesn't burn down a lot, so you shouldn't have to pay for the fire service with your taxes right? Also, you never break any laws, and you live in a nice area, so why should you pay for the police force? You can't argue those kind of things, they affect everybody."

Yes, and rational capitalist democratic actors have made rational choices to pay portions of their wealth towards those services, just as they would purchase things like insurance or fire extinguishers for their homes, or as they would give to charities. If you truly can't tell the difference between that and communism, then we don't have a whole lot to talk about.

"People flew planes into american buildings, which might not have been america's fault, but it certainly was dues to the west's negligance."

So if I beat my boss to death with an aluminum bat because I don't think he's paying me enough, it was due to his "negligance?" You should be an attorney.

"We here are in a situation where we have the ability to provide for poorer countries, and we choose not to. sooner or later that will come back and bite us in the ass again, except next time it will be worse."

No, the fact is that we don't have the ability to provide for poorer countries. One thing that contemporary history has taught us is that foreign aid does not feed children efficiently. In order to "provide" for foreign nations we must do what we are in the process of doing in Afghanistan in every Third World nation; that is, establishing democratic systems and MARKET ECONOMIES, forcibly if necessary. Is that what you're advocating? I'd also add that, while foreign aid does very little to solve anyone's problems (except for people who want to sleep better at night but don't care about actually fixing anything), the US provides more than anyone else (by volume) by far, without even considering private charitable donations.





(Edited by reagan lives at 12:55 am on July 26, 2002)

[Guest]

marxistdisciple: You can help or do whatever you want, all I am saying is that you can't force me to do anything for you. I exist for myself not society as a whole. The only person who should, and can, produce for an individual is that individual. We aren't doing anything. It is you and me, not we. It is not a collective where my pain and labor go to your goal. I am not willing to sacrifice myself to you, that is why I am an individualist/capitalist. I will not sacrifice myself, and wont pity the man who does.

[peaccenicked]

RL
Back to your old tricks again, I wonder, are you looking for a job in corporate America as a journalist, all you need to do is stay ''on message'' with the bipartisan
billionaires who run your country. You dont seem to flinch too much, what s that about not having the ability to provide for the poorer counties, how about stopping
ripping them off and giving out buttons.

[Guest]

Why don't the poor countries quit selling their souls to Kantian philosophies.

[Xvall]

"No, that is a totally different logic. If you lived in the Soviet Union you really didn't had a choice to move somewhere else. As an American you are free to travel and exit the country whenever you desire to do so. In the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany this wasn't really an option."

I'm too young to move away.

[Guest]

Being to young doesn't matter unless you subordinate yourself to the rules of your society, basing your life on the decisions of others, then blaming them for it.

[Xvall]

"I've been away too long if Commies are getting away with shit like this."

Aww, How sweet. I'm sure everyone here misses you!

"And yet, here you are. I suppose we should learn a lesson from the long and storied history of political dissent and civil disobedience in Communist nations. Tiennaman Square comes to mind."

Yes, Here we are submitting ourselves. If we stop submitting ourselves, we die. What does Tiennaman Square have to do with any of this. You're using the typical Capitalist rhetoric of yelling at bad thing that fake 'communist' nations have done. Unlike you Raegan, who proudly bears the banner of your dictator and supports him, we don't nececarrily support the actions of China.


"And this guy just said that "most capitalists" are lazy."

So you're not lazy? Okay then, move the the other side of the planet Raegan. Go on! Do it! If you don't, then you're a lazy boy!

"Of course it's not, why do you think the gulags existed? The difference is that in a capitalist society, you can dissent. You can lay about and not have a job and live on the street or in your mother's basement. You have the choice, the freedom, to starve. You also have the freedom to go out and get everything you can. Or anywhere in between. There is no such freedom in communism."

Communism is a theory. A theory can not 'lack' freedom. Although certain regimes who have claimed to follow that theory may. And that still doesn't mean that Communists can't be Communists if they live in Capitalist countries.

"Back that statement up. Prove it."

What evidence do you need? In capitalist countries, someone will always have the 'lower' job. Someone will always be stuck as the janitor, or the delivery boy, or the sanitation engineer. Everyone can't be wealthy and rich, even if they want to. If everyone was rich, no one would be making any items, and no one would be working. Is is REQUIRED in capitalism that someone will always have the low paying job. How do you think people get rich?

"Typical stupidity, defining things like "rich" and "poor" in such concrete terms. Your mind can't conceive of the words meaning anything other than how much money one has in one's bank account. Rich and poor are fundamentally degrees of independence. The rich are "rich" not because they have a lot of paper with Presidents on it, but because they are independent and therefore have more choices. The poor are "poor" not because they don't have a lot of said paper, but because their lack of it renders them dependent upon someone else and thereby limits their choices. In communist systems, everyone is by definition dependent, and choices are externally limited. Everyone is poor because independence has been surrendered."

I don't know what you think. But that is all that being rich is. Having all that 'useful' green paper. People aren't rich because they are independent. People aren't poor because they are dependent. Most people are born into this caste system. Poor people don't always WANT to be poor, you know. And rich people don't always deserve the money that they're rich uncle/father has given them.

"So if I beat my boss to death with an aluminum bat because I don't think he's paying me enough, it was due to his "negligance?"

They didn't attack your towers because they didn't think America was 'paying' them enough. Maybe if your boss went and funded a few war lords that take conrtrol of your life, then maybe you can hit your boss with the bat. (By the way, if your boss IS neglecting your pay, I support you beating him with a baseball bat!)

"No, the fact is that we don't have the ability to provide for poorer countries. One thing that contemporary history has taught us is that foreign aid does not feed children efficiently. In order to "provide" for foreign nations we must do what we are in the process of doing in Afghanistan in every Third World nation; that is, establishing democratic systems and MARKET ECONOMIES, forcibly if necessary."

Uh, huh. That's what makes these countries HATE you in the first place. I don't think you're going to feed all these staving children by invading africa and establishing 'democratic market economies' (Bit of an Oxymoron, if you ask me.) and blowing half the place up. Maybe if America didn't think like this, people wouldn't be trying to slam planes into buildings.

that what you're advocating? I'd also add that, while foreign aid does very little to solve anyone's problems (except for people who want to sleep better at night but don't care about actually fixing anything), the US provides more than anyone else (by volume) by far, without even considering private charitable donations.

Yeah, the US also, more than anyone else, invades countries, assasinates officials, and overthrows foreign regimes to replace them with dictators like Pinochet and Saddam Hussein.

Thanks!

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 3:10 am on July 26, 2002)

[Xvall]

Being to young doesn't matter unless you subordinate yourself to the rules of your society, basing your life on the decisions of others, then blaming them for it.

It does matter! Do you want me to 'hitch hike' to Cuba? Besides. I am a revolutionary, and my revolutionary activities must go on HERE!

[Guest]

Then you don't really want to move. You want to stay here until Americas deteriorates to a socialist dictatorship by the majority. What about the millions of Americans who live here because they want true capitalism. If you want socialism why don't you go were it already exist, instead of violating the rights of individuals who want to life for themselves not your idea of a society.
You sit there and conplain about being too young to move, yet you admit you don't want to move, you'd rather push a radical political movement on a country whose founding principles stand against it. America was created for the individual, sadly it has been perverted by socialism which is against the individual.

[reagan lives]

hardy har har har.

"Yes, Here we are submitting ourselves. If we stop submitting ourselves, we die."

My favorite line from "Traffic": Do you think there's a difference between a reason and an excuse? Because I don't.

"So you're not lazy? Okay then, move the the other side of the planet Raegan. Go on! Do it! If you don't, then you're a lazy boy!"

I didn't call anybody lazy. I just remarked on the fact that in one paragraph he made a generalization about a group of people which I presume he does not count himself among as being "lazy," and in the next paragraph used the phrase "it's too hard."

"Communism is a theory. A theory can not 'lack' freedom."

Now I remember why I liked this board...the farcical value. Putting the word lack inside quotes really adds a nice arbitrary touch. The other thing I like is that you folks always leave me with so many options about how to refute you. For instance, I could say that if communism is nothing more than a theory, then neither is freedom, and if the two are like terms than we can certainly compare them. Or I could say that if communism is a theory, than so is slavery. Slavery being the antithesis of freedom, it therefore lacks freedom, ergo, a theory can lack freedom. Or I could give you a mulligan on that one and let you try to actually refute what I said rather than playing word games.

"And that still doesn't mean that Communists can't be Communists if they live in Capitalist countries."

That's my point, I agree with that wholeheartedly. What I'm saying is that capitalists cannot be capitalists if they live in communist countries.

"What evidence do you need? In capitalist countries, someone will always have the 'lower' job. Someone will always be stuck as the janitor, or the delivery boy, or the sanitation engineer."

The assumption in your argument is that the janitor, delivery boy, and sanitation engineer are all "poor" and that "poverty" is de facto implicit in their job description. Do you want to compare the American janitor to the "small business owner" in Somalia? Still think he's "poor?"

"If everyone was rich, no one would be making any items"

Another assumption (which is actually the same as the first assumption now that I think about it): rich people do not create things. Do you see how your entire philosophy is propped up on assumptions like a little logical house of cards?

"How do you think people get rich?"

By trading goods and services.

"They didn't attack your towers because they didn't think America was 'paying' them enough. Maybe if your boss went and funded a few war lords that take conrtrol of your life, then maybe you can hit your boss with the bat."

The art of the analogy is lost on you, my boy. The term "negligent" implies responsibility; ergo if America was "negligent" with respect to the Third World, America must have had some responsibilities to neglect in the first place. And as whacky as that is, the only halfway reasonable assertion thereof is that the responsibilities of America to the Third World are the same as the responsibilites of the employer to the employee; i.e. to provide sustainance. Sheesh. I'll try another one: if my father makes $50,000 a year and gives me $5 per week in allowance, and I think that's inadequate and therefore I hack him to death in his sleep, is it his fault because he was "negligent?"

"I don't think you're going to feed all these staving children by invading africa and establishing 'democratic market economies'"

If that's a speculation about future events or the lack thereof, then I agree. If it's a critique of my statement, then I disagree and would ask you to provide me with one example of a properly functioning market economy that does not provide for its citizens (e.g. does not have a standard of living that meets the standards of the "first world").

"I don't know what you think. But that is all that being rich is. Having all that 'useful' green paper. People aren't rich because they are independent. People aren't poor because they are dependent."

Either I'm not being clear or you're really, really stupid. Let me walk you through this step by step. Why is it a good thing to have a lot of money in a capitalist system?

[Lardlad95]

Guest, who said I wanted you to work for someone else?

No I want people to all have an equal opportunity.

I don't want people to be paid for nothing. I want everyone to have a job.

However you do already pay for services that are used by other people. I mean how many times do you actualy have a fire?

Also Capitalism forces people to be poor because with no poor it couldn't work.

[Stormin Norman]

In response to:

"Also Capitalism forces people to be poor because with no poor it couldn't work."

Really? How's that?

[Lardlad95]

People start buisnesses in capitalism. the buisnesses need workers. if the workers were paid as much as the bosses in a cappie society then the workers would be capable of starting there own buisnesses.

those buisnesses will need workers but all the workers are now capable of doing their dream jobs.

not to mention the fact that if the bosses started paying the workers as much as them selves they wouldn't recieve as much money and we all know a boss wont do that

[Guest]

If you have socialism you have to work for everyone else. That is the whole concept. Everyone might have a job but what is their job worth. Why should those who produce what advances a society have to give their advancements to all others. Why should one individual be responsible for another. Any service I pay for another person to perform would br of my own free will, which doesn't happen. I don't pay taxes, so I don't pay the socialist machine. Capitalism doesn't work of the poor, it works off the producing and leaves the non-producing behind (poor). Give me a good arguement why the real producers, not the people watching the machines, the ones who designed those machines, organized their production, put them to use as capital, and made a profit, should go back and drag someone who has no ambition to produce anything. Does having drive give you a responsibility to drag everyone else.

[peaccenicked]

Quite simply if there is no material want then labour would be free and would be unlikely to want to work in what are generally antagonistic conditions.
Unions would not have arisen if emploers interests were not opposed to those of the workforce on the level of basic economics outside the mere unity of productive endeavour.
Profits and wage levels are opposing forces. ie profits eat into wages and vice versa. It is also intrinsic to capitalism particularly in moments of crises to use unemployment to drive down the level of wages.
The boss can always say ''There are plenty were you come from?''

[Guest]

You forget also that the bosses produce the jobs in the beginning. They don't ask for jobs to be produced for them, they do it themselves. Why should they achieve someone elses dream for them. I don't expect anybody to make me suceed. I do what I do from my drive. Yoiu can't force the incapable of suceeding, and bringing those who suceed down is a bad sustitute, though commonly used.

[Lardlad95]

Every job is important. With out the people doing the work the people who designed the machines wouldn't be making any money.

Do you think all poor people are poor because they are lazy? What about the people who were born poor? Is it there fault?

THe people who design shit are just another gear in the machine.

With out them the machine wont work and with out the real workers the machine wouldn't work.

You act as if the people who break their fucking backs are worthless.

You mistake equality for people having to do everything for everyone.

I don't expect a fireman to perform open heart sugery.

People do their job and should be paid for it just as much as everyone else. Because with out every piece a machine doesn't work.

[Xvall]

"hardy har har har."

Are you laughing at ME?

"My favorite line from "Traffic": Do you think there's a difference between a reason and an excuse? Because I don't."

I dont' care about Traffic. Besides, isn't it a leftist movie?

"I didn't call anybody lazy. I just remarked on the fact that in one paragraph he made a generalization about a group of people which I presume he does not count himself among as being "lazy," and in the next paragraph used the phrase "it's too hard."

I'm fairly sure that you are makign some sort of implication that he is being 'lazy'.

"Now I remember why I liked this board...the farcical value. Putting the word lack inside quotes really adds a nice arbitrary touch. The other thing I like is that you folks always leave me with so many options about how to refute you. For instance, I could say that if communism is nothing more than a theory, then neither is freedom, and if the two are like terms than we can certainly compare them. Or I could say that if communism is a theory, than so is slavery. Slavery being the antithesis of freedom, it therefore lacks freedom, ergo, a theory can lack freedom. Or I could give you a mulligan on that one and let you try to actually refute what I said rather than playing word games."

Freedom isn't a theory. Freedom is a state of being. Slavery isn't a theory either. There is no "Manifesto of Freedom" or "Manifesto of Slavery". And therefore, there is no base to compare those to communism. Why do you think communism is 'unfree'? What part of the manifesto states that it will prohibit freedom? Why do you assume that everyone follows the manifesto word for word?

"That's my point, I agree with that wholeheartedly. What I'm saying is that capitalists cannot be capitalists if they live in communist countries."

Although I insist that the coutnries you are referring to aren't communists, Capitalists still lived there. They just weren't allowed to own businesses. Being a Capitalist doesn't require you own a business, but rather that you follow the theories of capitalism.

"The assumption in your argument is that the janitor, delivery boy, and sanitation engineer are all "poor" and that "poverty" is de facto implicit in their job description. Do you want to compare the American janitor to the "small business owner" in Somalia? Still think he's "poor?"

The Janitor is 'poor'. Or at least 'lower class'. Do you know any 'high class' janitors? I dont' know any janitors who think they are going to 'make it big' cleaning.

Another assumption (which is actually the same as the first assumption now that I think about it): rich people do not create things. Do you see how your entire philosophy is propped up on assumptions like a little logical house of cards?

I didn't state that rich people create things! I said that "If everyone was rich, no one would be making any items.". That's the entire point! I stated that you can't run a society with everyone being rich, and therefore, it's not like everyone can be wealthy 'If they tried'.

"By trading goods and services."

Not all people get rich like that. As I have stated, some people inherit their money and property. And not everyone who 'trades goods and services' becomes rich.

"The art of the analogy is lost on you, my boy. The term "negligent" implies responsibility; ergo if America was "negligent" with respect to the Third World, America must have had some responsibilities to neglect in the first place. And as whacky as that is, the only halfway reasonable assertion thereof is that the responsibilities of America to the Third World are the same as the responsibilites of the employer to the employee; i.e. to provide sustainance."

America became neglectant by helping out those third world countries (Such as Afghanistan). And then just abandoning them to strive on their own once the Soviets were driven out. They got involved, and left a footprint.

[/i]"Sheesh. I'll try another one: if my father makes $50,000 a year and gives me $5 per week in allowance, and I think that's inadequate and therefore I hack him to death in his sleep, is it his fault because he was "negligent?""[/i]

That's a bit more extreme. Like I said. America didn't 'neglect' Afghanistan by 'not giving them enough'. They neglected it by leaving it to struggle once they had used it for their Cold War statement. The WTC attacks had nothing to do with 'money' or 'allowances'.

"If that's a speculation about future events or the lack thereof, then I agree. If it's a critique of my statement, then I disagree and would ask you to provide me with one example of a properly functioning market economy that does not provide for its citizens (e.g. does not have a standard of living that meets the standards of the "first world")."

I'm just saying, that I don't like your idea about 'forcefully' installing capitalist markets. That is similar to the soviet idea of 'forcefully' expanding communism. You would be starting another Afghanistan.

"Either I'm not being clear or you're really, really stupid. Let me walk you through this step by step. Why is it a good thing to have a lot of money in a capitalist system?"

It is 'good' because you don't have to really work anymore. You can lounge and relax, and hire people to do everything for you with the given amount of money. That is what 'CAPITALism' is all about, isn't it?

[Xvall]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 3:55 am on July 26, 2002
In response to:

"Also Capitalism forces people to be poor because with no poor it couldn't work."

Really? How's that?


I covered this in the argument with Raegan. Someone will ALWAYS be stuck with a low paying job.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Guest on 4:10 am on July 26, 2002
You forget also that the bosses produce the jobs in the beginning. They don't ask for jobs to be produced for them, they do it themselves. Why should they achieve someone elses dream for them. I don't expect anybody to make me suceed. I do what I do from my drive. Yoiu can't force the incapable of suceeding, and bringing those who suceed down is a bad sustitute, though commonly used.


but what about the people who are ambitious and can suceed but no one gives them a chance because of their race, because they are poor?

[Guest]

The only reason second handers get jobs is to buy the material the producing created. That calls for more cheap labor jobs to mass produce a few peoples ideas for the whole society. It isn't the fault of the producers that the people in the society have no way to create their own materials, you can't force everyone in a society to understand one mans advancement. So the people are driven by their lust for another man's achievement. Now they feel guilty that they could not achieve it. What now? They blame the producer for making them the way they are, renounce him, persecute him, and keep his product. If men want to claim that the benefit of their ideas should be reaped by them they are told thet everyone is equal and even the man who screws the screws into the product is as good as the minds that produces it. Creator or second hander, TAKE A CHOICE

[Lardlad95]

Ok remove the man who screws the screws. THen what? And idea isn't shit if a person an't produce it.

[Guest]

No one should give you a chance to suceed and race, religion, social background only matter as much as the person lets them. I don't expect people to judge me by things I don't determine. It is what I do and achieve for myself that matters.

[Guest]

The only reason mass production happens is because most of society is incapable of understanding the concepts yet they demand the product.

[Lardlad95]

ok a poor man has an incredible ide.

however those rich bastards who can help him wont let him get in the door to even speak.

He obviously doens't has the money to do it himself...what does he do?

[Guest]

Depends on what his idea is. He already made his first mistake though, he tried to go to another person. The thing is your drive shouldn't be for recognition of others, it should be the passion of what you are doing. You should live what you do every moment. It should be an end unto itself. Who cares if no one takes your ideas, all you are doing by trying to sell them is to sacrifice you though and creation to the masses. Conception in the mind is superior to any memorized task of a laboror, even if you don't get paid.

[Guest]

If you wanted the idea out that bad you could always get a low paying job and save money. It isn't that hard to work up some extra change here in America, and it doesn't take that muck to get your idea patented, which is a bunch of shit, and to market and produce it. Given you do it all yourself. It has been done many times, the only prerequisite is that you have to want it bad enough to get it. Not just talk about it.

[Lardlad95]

if you hve an invention don't you need money to produce it? A man with no money can't produce it because...get this...he's flat fuckin broke.

Also your saying even if you don't get paid? So your saying a man with an idea should get paid more than a person that actualy works?

[Guest]

How do you define work? How do you create an idea? What yoiu do with your life should have a meaning more than just work to get paid to eat to work. You exist soley for your own existance, and to waste your time on another man's work would be a self-sacrifice. Sadly many people are willing to make it, that is their choice.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Guest on 4:35 am on July 26, 2002
If you wanted the idea out that bad you could always get a low paying job and save money. It isn't that hard to work up some extra change here in America, and it doesn't take that muck to get your idea patented, which is a bunch of shit, and to market and produce it. Given you do it all yourself. It has been done many times, the only prerequisite is that you have to want it bad enough to get it. Not just talk about it.


that is very true however you know some large company is gonna bully him out of buisness.

I'm not saying its impossible I'm just saying the odds are slim.

besides I'm a democratic socialist I'm in favor of small buisness as long as it doesn't grow to a corparation

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Guest on 4:40 am on July 26, 2002
How do you define work? How do you create an idea? What yoiu do with your life should have a meaning more than just work to get paid to eat to work. You exist soley for your own existance, and to waste your time on another man's work would be a self-sacrifice. Sadly many people are willing to make it, that is their choice.


if everyone worked for thir own benefiet society would no progress

[Guest]

One of the only reasons corporations exist is to produce at large scale for the society, who for the most part don't understand what is being produced. The people who are true capitalist just want a free exchange of ideas in the market, free of social and governmental control. If capitalist in our country weren't forced to produce for the whole society, the incompitant people who don't truely understand the products that they want, would make war. If no one was there to give them a job they would never get one, they would simply demand a share of what they others produced, and probably start a "revolution." So for a producer in our society you are forced to produce enough of your product for everyone, meaning more jobs, use of more resourses, ect. Mass production is a side effect of masses not capitalism. If individualist could get rid of collectivist parasites we would, but not everything is that easy. It isn't about money it is about understanding, advancement, and the right to live for yourself.

[Guest]

If everyone worked for their own benefit society as a whole wouldn't advance, only those aspects of it capable and worthy of the progress. Societies progress shouldn't be gauged by its slowest movers, thinkers, ect. You can't expect advancement to cease because some people don't get it. Those who do understand have a right to understand, and not only that. Understanding makes them better than those who refuse or can't understand. Everyones mind isn't equal, and that is no reason to slow those that are faster and better.

[Stormin Norman]

Nice posts, guest. You should think of a catchy capitalist name and aid us in our fight against evil. I know what you are thinking, for I was also slow to register. I feared that I might be tracked and put on some list. To hell with them they can read the posts and decide for themselves if I am a friend or foe. Freedom of speech still prevails where I come from and I intend to use it to expose the weakness of my enemy.

Use the name of one of the old robber barons. That would really piss them off.

[Xvall]

"Use the name of one of the old robber barons. That would really piss them off."

God Storman! Is that all you're here to do? Just piss us off!? Yeah, he should name himself Rockafeller.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Guest on 5:02 am on July 26, 2002
If everyone worked for their own benefit society as a whole wouldn't advance, only those aspects of it capable and worthy of the progress. Societies progress shouldn't be gauged by its slowest movers, thinkers, ect. You can't expect advancement to cease because some people don't get it. Those who do understand have a right to understand, and not only that. Understanding makes them better than those who refuse or can't understand. Everyones mind isn't equal, and that is no reason to slow those that are faster and better.



that was indeed a nice post however thats not what I meant.

I'm saying if everyone simply came up with their own ideas, didn't share them with others. Didn't teach other people knew ways. And only looked out for themselves ie hunting for themselves living by themselves.

We wouldn't be past the stone age.

Society progresses because people shared ideas. Now thousands of years later we manipulated that into making a profit.

However society would still progress if people realized that they were just as important as every other member of society and that with out their job the gears wouldn't turn.

Capitalist assume that people are worthless and expendable.

[Guest]

The only people worthy of sharing the ideas are those who can also conceive them. You can't expect the creator of an idea for educating a whole society about it. It is up to the individuals to find the knowledge, usually through writting (mostly physics/philosophy). Capitalism assumes that those who wish to remain worthless and expendable (and the only person you are not, by law of nature, expenable to is yourself) will, and those who desire knowledge, have self respect and confidence in themself, and make what they want out of the world should be left to do it free from the worry of losing their rights to the intimidating force and aggression of the majority, who simply want to use the products, not understand them.

[Stormin Norman]

I guess it all depends on how you view man's nature, or for that matter, what you think about egoism. Do you agree with Hobbes or with Locke. Which social contract theory makes more sense? Who was right about man's natural state?

[Guest]

Survival of the fittest. It is the most basic natural law. Most mens nature is to savagely take what is produced, and other seek knowledge and understanding of how to produce and know. Egotism is a necessity. The only way you know life is through your perception, or self. You must always understand the importance of your self, to deny it is unnatural and would (does) cause guilt. All you know is your self. Haven't read any Locke or Hobbes in a while but social contract must be mutual profit. If someone doesn't hold up their end of the contract, i.e. produce something everyone wants can use (a market) then they have no real contract. Therefore they do not then have the right to demand the control of those who kept the contract simply because they did not. Man's natural state is individual self sufficiency, in all areas even ego, and the proper relationship for men is mutual profit.

[reagan lives]

"I dont' care about Traffic. Besides, isn't it a leftist movie?"

...he says as he yet again avoids the substance of the statement. And no, it's not a "leftist" movie, whatever that means.

"I'm fairly sure that you are makign some sort of implication that he is being 'lazy'."

No, I was making the implication that he is a hypocrite. Critical reading 101.

"Freedom isn't a theory. Freedom is a state of being."

This is counterproductive. You're just assigning random word-values to different things as you define them...communism is a "theory," freedom is a "state of being," etc, to avoid having to defend your ideas on any practical grounds.

"There is no 'Manifesto of Freedom' or 'Manifesto of Slavery'."

So a Manifesto is a prerequisite for a "theory?" Do you see how arbitrary this is?

"Why do you think communism is 'unfree'?"

The twentieth century.

"What part of the manifesto states that it will prohibit freedom?"

Yeah, if I were going to write a manifesto I'd be sure to explain clearly how my ideas will "prohibit freedom." Besides, there's a big difference between the manifesto and the real idea. But you knew that, because next you say

"Why do you assume that everyone follows the manifesto word for word?"

I don't. The defense of communism that you seem to be offering is that the manifesto, word for word, is nifty, but when it gets translated into the real world it becomes something else. Which is precisely my attack upon it...ideas (or theories or states of being or whatever you prefer) are only as good as their practice. You can wipe your ass with a manifesto, you can feed people with an economic system.

"Being a Capitalist doesn't require you own a business, but rather that you follow the theories of capitalism."

Like getting compensated for your work and owning private property. Let me ask you this: in Dracolia, the ideal communist nation, what is done with those who refuse to work?

"The Janitor is 'poor'. Or at least 'lower class'. Do you know any 'high class' janitors?"

Anecdote: this is a true story. My mother teaches in an elementary school where this year their old janitor retired after many years of service. A new, younger guy came in and reorganized the entire maintenance system. He not only responded to problems and requests promptly, he in fact actively went in search of problems to solve. When my mother talked to him she was amazed that such an intelligent and seemingly motivated young guy would be cleaning up kindergarteners' puke. Then she found out that he had just retired early from his career as a VP at IBM. The guy has more money than you or I ever will put together. So yes, I know a high class janitor. But back to the point: I'll ask you again, compare your local janitor to the subsistence farmer in the Third World and tell me how "poor" he is.

"I didn't state that rich people create things! I said that 'If everyone was rich, no one would be making any items.'."

I agree that that's what you said, which I why I said that your ASSUMPTION is that rich people DO NOT create things, which they most certainly DO.

"Not all people get rich like that. As I have stated, some people inherit their money and property."

So?

"And not everyone who 'trades goods and services' becomes rich."

So?

"America became neglectant by helping out those third world countries (Such as Afghanistan). And then just abandoning them to strive on their own once the Soviets were driven out. They got involved, and left a footprint."

Amplify that, please. How did America "help them out?" Did such help create a moral responsibility to continue that help ad infinitum, even if it proved to exacerbate the existing problems (e.g. horrible wealth distribution)?

"They neglected it by leaving it to struggle once they had used it for their Cold War statement. The WTC attacks had nothing to do with 'money' or 'allowances'."

OK, I'm done trying to use analogical reasoning with you...apparently you haven't gotten to that point in your seventh grade English class yet. Please tell me what al-Qaeda has to do with the Cold War...referencing any of bin Laden's fatwas would strengthen your case, but it's not required.

"I'm just saying, that I don't like your idea about 'forcefully' installing capitalist markets."

Okay, then we'll just replace military dictators by asking them real nice, and maybe by giving them lots of money in foreign aid so they can buy a new jet plane. I'm not talking about forcibly overthrowing the "will of the people," I'm talking about forcibly (if necessary) removing scourges like the Taliban.

"It is 'good' because you don't have to really work anymore."

It's good because you DON'T HAVE to work anymore. An external constraint has been removed. You CAN [i.e. you have the FREEDOM TO] lounge and relax etc etc. You have more viable choices, and therefore your indepence has increased. You see?

[Guest]

Any socialist doctrine opposes freedom by making all men responsilbe for all the other. You are not independent and are in fact in bondage to your society.

[Lardlad95]

who said that? I don't expect you to do my work for me SO what you pay some taxes so a homless man can get help finding a job.

I never want anyone to pay someone elses way. However I think people who don't have a job should find a job that suites them. Which is why I think welfare is wrong.

I want people to work not be lazy.

But this isn't what I want to disscuss

I'm saying why are you treating workers like dirt?

Ok get rid of the people who screw the screws, you idea aint that great now that it can't be built.

[Guest]

You don't have to hire these workers to make a profit. Make it by hand. Economics, lower production(supply)=higher profit. Then the problem would be only the wealth could by your product. Now the public demands the ability to use your product, saying it is unfair that poor can't afford it. In response you hire low wage workers you didn't WANT, but were told you were socially responsible for. Now the workers can earn wages to buy your product, but they haven't gotten anywhere. Working for another mans end is not a sucess, and attempting it could cause the failure of both. The person with the idea now ends up with a labor force , which he doesn't really need, and they are making demands for higher wages. Why should he pay? The only reason he gave them a job was because they demanded he allow them access to his product. The people who depend on others ideas to live are second-handers. They produce nothing in life, the just expect to be able to use what is produced. They don't understand the things they use, this, too, is the fault of the creator. They say he has nothing better to do than to plot on how to manipulate other men. The men blame all their social and personal problems on the creator of the idea. If men are incapable opf surviving themselves it is self-sacrificial to try to provide for them. Once you lose your ability of self-sufficiency you lose the essence of existance, which is to exist independently others.

I didn't mean you ment I would come to your job and do your work, I ment you would expect my work to profit you. This idea might work in limited situations, but if you don't know who you are trusting you are sacrificing your work to the mass expecting them also to contribute. Does that really the trust of all men on earth really sound logical, or even natural to a species such as ours.

[Xvall]

This is counterproductive. You're just assigning random word-values to different things as you define them...communism is a "theory," freedom is a "state of being," etc, to avoid having to defend your ideas on any practical grounds.

Let's not get into some stupid grammatical error conversation. You know what I'm trying to say.

So a Manifesto is a prerequisite for a "theory?" Do you see how arbitrary this is?

Not nececarilly. But a 'theory' requires that someone thought it up. Freedom wasn't 'thought up'. Freedom is what everyone should be born with.

The twentieth century.

I have known no communist societies in the twentieth century. If there were communists societies, why do you think that they can never achieve 'freedom'? Because certain ones set an example? Do you know how messed up that is? That's like saying that black people should never again walk the face of earth because some of them have comitted crimes.

Yeah, if I were going to write a manifesto I'd be sure to explain clearly how my ideas will "prohibit freedom." Besides, there's a big difference between the manifesto and the real idea.

Yes. I don't base all my beliefs on the manifesto. So don't think all communists have the same goals.

Like getting compensated for your work and owning private property. Let me ask you this: in Dracolia, the ideal communist nation, what is done with those who refuse to work?

They don't eat. That, or they can leave. I dont' plan on having any 'emmigration' restrictions, if I made such a society.

Anecdote: this is a true story. My mother teaches in an elementary school where this year their old janitor retired after many years of service. A new, younger guy came in and reorganized the entire maintenance system. He not only responded to problems and requests promptly, he in fact actively went in search of problems to solve. When my mother talked to him she was amazed that such an intelligent and seemingly motivated young guy would be cleaning up kindergarteners' puke. Then she found out that he had just retired early from his career as a VP at IBM. The guy has more money than you or I ever will put together. So yes, I know a high class janitor. But back to the point: I'll ask you again, compare your local janitor to the subsistence farmer in the Third World and tell me how "poor" he is.

But he had a business job before that. This is basically a retirement job that he obviously has a pleasure for. He isn't doing it to survive. And I doubt he was raised in a lower-class family, and born into poverty.

I agree that that's what you said, which I why I said that your ASSUMPTION is that rich people DO NOT create things, which they most certainly DO.

I still do not believe they create things. Although some of them might supervise creating things. Many are just lazy, and inherited their money.

So?

Isn't that a little unfair? That some peopel are just given a good hand, while others have to struggle from the ashes?

So?

It means that everyone is not capable of just 'making a better life for themselves'.

Amplify that, please. How did America "help them out?" Did such help create a moral responsibility to continue that help ad infinitum, even if it proved to exacerbate the existing problems (e.g. horrible wealth distribution)?

We can just say that america became very dedicated with it. It's like promising to heal a sick patient, and only curing one of his deseases, leaving the other to fester. It's not nice, Mr. Reagan.

OK, I'm done trying to use analogical reasoning with you...apparently you haven't gotten to that point in your seventh grade English class yet. Please tell me what al-Qaeda has to do with the Cold War...referencing any of bin Laden's fatwas would strengthen your case, but it's not required.

Face it. America only helped out Afghanistan to make a statement that communism would not spread into other nations. I doubt they they would have cared if a capitalistic country invaded.

Okay, then we'll just replace military dictators by asking them real nice, and maybe by giving them lots of money in foreign aid so they can buy a new jet plane. I'm not talking about forcibly overthrowing the "will of the people," I'm talking about forcibly (if necessary) removing scourges like the Taliban.

Yeah, but then you're likely to incinerate half the country in the process. Name one coutnry America has 'involved' themselves in where they haven't left some crater.

It's good because you DON'T HAVE to work anymore. An external constraint has been removed. You CAN [i.e. you have the FREEDOM TO] lounge and relax etc etc. You have more viable choices, and therefore your indepence has increased. You see?

No. I probably need new glasses. Seriously, that's your preferance. Not mine. You're a capitalist, I'm a communist. No use trying to 'convert' each other.

[Guest]

How could you make a socialistic society without owning it. If you claim no right to ownership then why couldn't those who don't live in your nation claim it? You don't own it.

[Solzhenitsyn]

How could you make a socialistic society without owning it. If you claim no right to ownership then why couldn't those who don't live in your nation claim it? You don't own it.

Good point, guest. Since property ownership is impossible to eliminate, the socialist party winds up owning everything. That's a de jure monopoly if I've ever seen one.

[Guest]

That idea demonstrates the fear of individuals to socialism. It is like the fear of many anti-globalists, who for some reason think capitalism will lead them to global bondage. The only problem is that a capitalist likes globalization for the bigger market, a socialist likes it for complete control and ownership. Therefore, anti-globalists shouldn't fear global-capitalism (meaning free markets everywhere, with no control over individuals) they should fear global-socialism (meaning closed markets controled by one centeral government.) One of these stratigies has been followed very rigorously over the last hundred years. Can you guess which one?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Solzhenitsyn on 2:43 am on July 27, 2002


How could you make a socialistic society without owning it. If you claim no right to ownership then why couldn't those who don't live in your nation claim it? You don't own it.

Good point, guest. Since property ownership is impossible to eliminate, the socialist party winds up owning everything. That's a de jure monopoly if I've ever seen one.


what the hell are you talking about? Who the hell said people can't own property in a sociialist society.

NOT ALL SOCIALISM IS THE SAME PEOPLE.

Giving people free housing doesn't mean they can't own their house.

[Guest]

If you gave everyone free housing, it WOULD have to be paid for. Who are you going to get to pay for it?

[Tkinter1]

I have to ask... why do think that the prolitariat is struggling to live. You must be envisioning the old US were they have kids working in the coal mines, and women and children are forced to work insane hours for meager pay. Why do you insist on telling us that the entire working class is oppressed by the borguosie? Its called freedom, its called progression, its called CAPITALISM.

The unedited capitalism of course is going to be riddled with bugs. Like anything it needs to be tinkered to the best of its ability. It has, and will continue to improve and reform.

Quit over looking the progression that this country has made.

There will be no revolution...

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 4:59 am on July 27, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Guest on 3:13 am on July 27, 2002
If you gave everyone free housing, it WOULD have to be paid for. Who are you going to get to pay for it?


that would only occur in a developing socialist country Here we should just make houses for those who don't have them and people who who live in Ghettos and slums. As well as make housing more easily available.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Tkinter1 on 4:55 am on July 27, 2002
I have to ask... why do think that the prolitariat is struggling to live. You must be envisioning the old US were they have kids working in the coal mines, and women and children are forced to work insane hours for meager pay. Why do you insist on telling us that the entire working class is oppressed by the borguosie? Its called freedom, its called progression, its called CAPITALISM.

The unedited capitalism of course is going to be riddled with bugs. Like anything it needs to be tinkered to the best of its ability. It has, and will continue to improve and reform.

Quit over looking the progression that this country has made.

There will be no revolution...

(Edited by Tkinter1 at 4:59 am on July 27, 2002)


grow up in a ghetto not of your own free will. Get a meager education. Get rejected because of that meager education. Grow up around crack and guns.

Then tell me you wouldn't like to have it as good as those rich boys whos fathers paid for everything for them. While you can't get shit because your parents, not you are poor.

Not to mention the fact that companies can afford to pay more wages to people who actualy work.

[Guest]

You can't just make houses. Nothing that involves work is free. Where do you get resources, labor, architects, plumers, electricians, ect. These People create thing that the average man connot understand. They want payment for their work. Who pays?

[Guest]

The people who get their hard earned wealth robbed from them by the government thruogh taxation. That's who ultimately pays for all this so called "free" or "affordable housing"

[reagan lives]

"Let's not get into some stupid grammatical error conversation. You know what I'm trying to say."

No, I don't think I do.

"But a 'theory' requires that someone thought it up. Freedom wasn't 'thought up'. Freedom is what everyone should be born with."

You know what, maybe you should just go and take a philosophy 101 course and then we can talk on the same terms.

"I have known no communist societies in the twentieth century. If there were communists societies, why do you think that they can never achieve 'freedom'? Because certain ones set an example? Do you know how messed up that is? That's like saying that black people should never again walk the face of earth because some of them have comitted crimes."

We've been over this again, and again, and again. I think the reason I stopped posting on this board for a while was that I had to explain this like a dozen times a week. You treat the history of "communist implementations" (let's agree on that term as meaning ATTEMPTS to base governments or economies on communist ideas) as if each and every one was some sort of anomaly...that because of corrupt individuals or poor situations or whatever, a true implementation of communism was never achieved. Even though every single attempt devolved into poverty and dictatorship, you insist that these are in fact not the logical consequence of communism, because they're not outlined in the Manifesto. I agree that they're not outlined in the Manifesto, but I think that they are a necessary consequence of nations implementing the ideas that are outlined in the Manifesto. Your attempt at analogy is as poor as your reading of my last one. Black people have nothing inherently criminal about them...there is something inherently flawed and totalitarian about communism.

Me: "In Dracolia...what is done with those who refuse to work?"

Drake: "They don't eat."

Funny...that's what happens to those that don't work in America...and you seem to think that's unjust.

Drake: "That, or they can leave."

I thought that worldwide revolution was the true goal of communism. In which case, do you plan to use superior collectivist engineering and innovation to send dissenters to Mars? Or just Siberia again?

"But he had a business job before that. This is basically a retirement job that he obviously has a pleasure for. He isn't doing it to survive. And I doubt he was raised in a lower-class family, and born into poverty."

The word "anectdote" before the anectdote tells you that it's an anectdote, and not argumentative. And, once again, you dodged the question, so I'll ask you one more time, and keep asking you: compared to your average Somalian, is the American janitor poor?

"I still do not believe they create things. Although some of them might supervise creating things. Many are just lazy, and inherited their money."

These sound suspiciously like wild generalizations and stereotypes, coming from someone who has probably never met a single person that fits the latter description in his life (neither have I).

"Isn't that a little unfair? That some peopel are just given a good hand, while others have to struggle from the ashes?"

If I work all my life because I want my son to be able to do whatever he wants, even lay on his ass for his entire life, is it fair to deprive me of that because of your arbitrary system of morality?

"It means that everyone is not capable of just 'making a better life for themselves'."

Scores upon scores of Americans who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps would disagree with you.

"We can just say that america became very dedicated with it. It's like promising to heal a sick patient, and only curing one of his deseases, leaving the other to fester. It's not nice, Mr. Reagan...Face it. America only helped out Afghanistan to make a statement that communism would not spread into other nations. I doubt they they would have cared if a capitalistic country invaded."

You're still avoiding actually justifying your points...instead you're using phrases like "we can just say" and "face it." I'm waiting to hear some real arguments...if you don't provide them, I'll assume it's because you don't have any.

"Yeah, but then you're likely to incinerate half the country in the process. Name one coutnry America has 'involved' themselves in where they haven't left some crater."

Europe in World War II.

"No. I probably need new glasses. Seriously, that's your preferance. Not mine. You're a capitalist, I'm a communist. No use trying to 'convert' each other."

Ah, the last haven for the refugees of logic...sticking one's fingers in one's ears and saying "la la la."

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Guest on 8:11 am on July 27, 2002
You can't just make houses. Nothing that involves work is free. Where do you get resources, labor, architects, plumers, electricians, ect. These People create thing that the average man connot understand. They want payment for their work. Who pays?


in the US's case we have the money except we put alot of it into the damn military.

There are things in the budget that can afford to go.

Not to mention all the money put into sending people who do drugs to jail.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Guest on 8:28 am on July 27, 2002
The people who get their hard earned wealth robbed from them by the government thruogh taxation. That's who ultimately pays for all this so called "free" or "affordable housing"


A man who got a job from his father isn't hardworking.

George Bush relied on his father's name his whole life what hard work did he do?

His energy company committed so many damn felonies. He got into Yale with SAT scores and grades lower than alot of the aplicants.

OH yeah the man works so hard.

Also if you are making 300,000 a year your not gonna starve to death with some higher taxes.

Also who said that a governments budget can't be readjusted to say lower funding to less improtant things like the military and give more to programs that help people.

[Lardlad95]

come on guest you really need to join. I'd like to know alittlte more about you than your political affiliation

[reagan lives]

"in the US's case we have the money except we put alot of it into the damn military."

Dumbass. The military generates money, it's not an expenditure. The Arab world learned this during the so-called "Renaissance" in Europe, whose scientific innovation was driven by military discoveries, and whose other advancements were funded by the new precursor to the military-industrial complex. Consequently, Europe leapfrogged past the Arab world in terms of scientific and social advancement, whereas prior to that the Arabs had been way ahead of Europe in just about everything.

"George Bush relied on his father's name his whole life what hard work did he do?"

Who are you, his biographer? What the hell do you know about this man's life?

"His energy company committed so many damn felonies."

Like what, for example? Be specific, please.

"He got into Yale with SAT scores and grades lower than alot of the aplicants."

Oh, really? What were his SAT scores? What was his GPA? What was the average for Yale applicants at the time? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

"Also if you are making 300,000 a year your not gonna starve to death with some higher taxes."

So that somehow makes it more justifiable to take money away? Is it alright to burglarize a mansion, because the owner can presumably afford it?

"Also who said that a governments budget can't be readjusted to say lower funding to less improtant things like the military and give more to programs that help people."

I doubt that anybody here (any so-called "cappies" anyway) is against useful and efficient social programming. The problem is that many government programs don't help people, and they spend a lot of money not helping them. It's not the idea of social welfare that we object to, it's the incredibly wasteful manner in which it's practiced.

[Lardlad95]

first of all before I answer what you were saying. That is exactley why the capitalist here aren't respected. you call me dumbass and shit like that? Have some class man. Damn I'm just talking here, when I insult you first then insult me back. You don't need to start acting like that ok.

First of all Bush's company hid millions in losses by selling a subsidary of the company to a number of its own executives. Not to mention he sold the stock illegally.

>>>The military generates money<<<

So then we don't put any money into the military, please tell me if I took you correctly.

>>>Oh, really? What were his SAT scores? What was his GPA? What was the average for Yale applicants at the time? Or are you just talking out of your ass? <<<

Ok, I don't know his GPA and such. However I heard it somewhere if I can find it I will post it. However until then I will allow you to believe that Bush is acctualy a man who has done so much for himself though I think we both know that the Bush name had alot to do with his sucess.

>>>Who are you, his biographer? What the hell do you know about this man's life? <<<

PLease then explain to me why I'm wrong. Do you think Bush is a man who actually had to work as hard as those people who actualy earned their way to be as sucessful as him?


>>>that somehow makes it more justifiable to take money away? Is it alright to burglarize a mansion, because the owner can presumably afford it? <<<


DId I say that? No I'm saying that if that happened the person still wouldn't be poor.

I don't want to steal your money I want to help other people.

>>>oubt that anybody here (any so-called "cappies" anyway) is against useful and efficient social programming. The problem is that many government programs don't help people, and they spend a lot of money not helping them. It's not the idea of social welfare that we object to, it's the incredibly wasteful manner in which it's practiced.<<<

Which is why I'm against welfare. That money can be better used finding people jobs.

Rather than paying people for nothing we should get them jobs so they can pay for themselves.

[reagan lives]

"first of all before I answer what you were saying. That is exactley why the capitalist here aren't respected. you call me dumbass and shit like that? Have some class man. Damn I'm just talking here, when I insult you first then insult me back. You don't need to start acting like that ok."

Oh, please be my friend.

"So then we don't put any money into the military, please tell me if I took you correctly."

OK, I'll walk you through this. The US government spends a large part of the tax revenue it collects on defense. How exactly does it spend that money? Does it build B-1 bombers out of $100 bills? No, it gives contracts to domestic defense manufacturers. The money gets recycled into the economy. The government takes money out of the economy, it puts the money back in, and a helicopter gets built. Capitalism at work. Also, if you look around you right now, many of the wonderful things you're surrounded by are actually military innovations that were then made commercially available. The computer you're using to read this, for example.

"PLease then explain to me why I'm wrong. Do you think Bush is a man who actually had to work as hard as those people who actualy earned their way to be as sucessful as him?"

I'm not saying anything about Bush's personal life, because I don't know anything about it. All I'm saying is that you don't know anything about it either, but you insist on acting like you do. Your statements are all based on stereotypes and conjecture. They're stereotypes and conjectures that most people are willing to believe, but that doesn't make them any more credible.

"I don't want to steal your money I want to help other people."

But your moral justification for that was that a "person making $300,000" is somehow less entitled to his money than a person making less.

"Rather than paying people for nothing we should get them jobs so they can pay for themselves."

We're in agreement.

[Vladimir]

''The military generates money''

Its yer biggest expenditure.

Department of Defense
Pay $81.2
Operating and Maintenance Costs $121.4
Weapon Purchases $56.7
Weapon Research $44.0
Construction $8.4
Other $1.3
Department of Defense Subtotal $313.0
Department of Energy (Military) $14.3
Other $1.4
“National Defense” $328.7
Foreign Military Aid $7.1
International Peacekeeping $0.9
Space (Military) $2.7
Military Retirement Pay $35.3
Veterans’ Benefits $51.6
Subtotal $97.6
Interest Attributable to Past Military Spending $92.6
Military and Military-Related Grand Total $518.9

NOTES: Does not include funding for intelligence activities. While the federal government briefly disclosed the overall figure for the intelligence budget
(without specifics), this is not currently done. For those years where the information was made available, however, intelligence activities received roughly
$28 billion annually, the majority of which was funded through the Defense Department.
SOURCES: CDI, OMB, DoD’s “National Defense Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2002.” Chart prepared by the Center for Defense Information.


(National Defence) $328.7b + (Military and Military-Related Grand Total) $518.9b + (Intelligence Activities) $28b and that comes to a grand total for the year of 2002 $875,000,000,000

IrishGuevara

[Xvall]

We've been over this again, and again, and again. I think the reason I stopped posting on this board for a while was that I had to explain this like a dozen times a week. You treat the history of "communist implementations" (let's agree on that term as meaning ATTEMPTS to base governments or economies on communist ideas) as if each and every one was some sort of anomaly...that because of corrupt individuals or poor situations or whatever, a true implementation of communism was never achieved. Even though every single attempt devolved into poverty and dictatorship, you insist that these are in fact not the logical consequence of communism, because they're not outlined in the Manifesto. I agree that they're not outlined in the Manifesto, but I think that they are a necessary consequence of nations implementing the ideas that are outlined in the Manifesto. Your attempt at analogy is as poor as your reading of my last one. Black people have nothing inherently criminal about them...there is something inherently flawed and totalitarian about communism.

Then all we have there is a disagreement. Not a debate. You are sure that communism will never happen. I however believe it is possible. World Peace has never been achieved either, but it does not mean that it should be looked down upon.

Funny...that's what happens to those that don't work in America...and you seem to think that's unjust.

Some people in America work very hard, but still struggle to eat and feed their families because they have such a low pay roll. In an ideal communistic society, everyone would be insured a job, and as long as that job is completed accordingly, they will recieve the supplies they need to survive.

I thought that worldwide revolution was the true goal of communism. In which case, do you plan to use superior collectivist engineering and innovation to send dissenters to Mars? Or just Siberia again?

Yep, worldwide revolution is a goal of communism. But I doubt that the entire planet will flip out into a red revolution anytime soon. This is assuming that there are other countries out there. Me mainly push towards revolution in poorer countries. We would rather like to see an African country adapt communism than say, Luxemberg do it.

The word "anectdote" before the anectdote tells you that it's an anectdote, and not argumentative. And, once again, you dodged the question, so I'll ask you one more time, and keep asking you: compared to your average Somalian, is the American janitor poor?

Nope. Probably not. But that's because even if you have money in Somalia. It's EXTREMELY difficult to find food.

These sound suspiciously like wild generalizations and stereotypes, coming from someone who has probably never met a single person that fits the latter description in his life (neither have I).

Personally, no. I have no met any 'rich folk'. I have read about them though, and the stories seem believable. Many people inherit their parent's businesses.

If I work all my life because I want my son to be able to do whatever he wants, even lay on his ass for his entire life, is it fair to deprive me of that because of your arbitrary system of morality?

Sure. Why not? According to most capitalists. "They can achieve anything if they want." So you shouldn't have too baby your son with luxury. He should be capable of going out and doing thing for himself like 'daddy'.

Scores upon scores of Americans who have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps would disagree with you.

Okay. Well, I'll disagree with them too. There are some people who have much trouble 'pulling themselves up' for some reason. My great uncle, for example, is partially deaf from working in a loud steel mill. He's very onld now, and wasn't given any treatment or benifits from his old injury. He also served in World War II, and nothing good came out of that except for mental problems. He has been doing nothing but working all his life, and now he lives with his sister, (My grandma) in a slummy neighborhood. All though I am sure it is possible in a capitalistic society to 'pull yourself' to a higher level; Not everyone can do it.

You're still avoiding actually justifying your points...instead you're using phrases like "we can just say" and "face it." I'm waiting to hear some real arguments...if you don't provide them, I'll assume it's because you don't have any.

What real argument? You're in denail. This is a fact. After the United States finished helping Afghanistan fight off the Soviets, it left it there, without any more support. The country could have at least been polite.

Europe in World War II.

Several cities in Europe were firebombed. Although I'm not very upset about the United State's actions in Europe, since overall it saved many people, I am upset at what they did in Japan.

Ah, the last haven for the refugees of logic...sticking one's fingers in one's ears and saying "la la la."

I'm not doing that. You said "You See?". That's stating that you're asking me if "I see" why capitalism is good. I'm just saying, NO, I don't see. I don't like Capitalism. I don't want to 'see' it.

[Xvall]

Quote: from Guest on 3:13 am on July 27, 2002: If you gave everyone free housing, it WOULD have to be paid for. Who are you going to get to pay for it?

Sorry. Houses aren't created by money. Money is useless. Money is paper with pictures of slave owners on it. Money serves no porpouse other than paper. Houses are built by people. We can organise building comitties to construct houses. Better yet, that can be one of the societys jobs. Builders and contruction engineers of all sorts.

[Vladimir]

http://www.cdi.org/products/almanac0102.pdf

Here this is the Military Almanac for 2001-2002 in pdf, it takes some time to load but lots of facts.
Capitalist Imperial might be interested in this too

IrishGuevara

[Guest]

Military is the only justifiable use of public fund. Theprotection of rights, including property, wealth, ect. They could even be used as a moral force to free people from rules that govern their freedoms in other places, but the confused politicians in our country and those the represent have no moral backbone and can't fight to free a nation when our nation itself has been taken over by the establishment.
Military is the most import ant and originally the only reason for social contract. My point is not that a man who makes 300,000 would starve if the goventment stole his money, it is that government has no moral, philosophical, or legal right to do so, and when it does it has became socialist, no free.

[reagan lives]

Irish Guevera: thank you for proving my point. Out of your estimated $518.9 billion, only $8 billion ("Foreign Military Aid" + "International Peacekeeping") is not spent domestically. That's roughly 1.5% The rest goes into creating things, researching things, and employing citizens to create, research, or defend things. The money is circulating right back into the American economy, what is so hard to understand about this?

Drake.
"You are sure that communism will never happen."

Wrong, I am sure that it has happened. You hide from history by claiming that it wan't Drake-approved communism, and that therefore it shouldn't count. I say that totalitarianism, poverty, and abject disaster are necessary consequences of ANY COLLECTIVIST NATIONAL SYSTEM, no matter what sort of window dressings you want to put on it. So yeah, we have a disagreement. But I have history and reality on my side of the disagreement, while you have your own delusions.

"In an ideal communistic society, everyone would be insured a job, and as long as that job is completed accordingly, they will recieve the supplies they need to survive."

What if I don't like my job? What if I want to be a lawyer instead of a construction worker?

"Nope. Probably not. But that's because even if you have money in Somalia. It's EXTREMELY difficult to find food."

That's right. Now if they had a proper capitalist system, it wouldn't be so hard. And before long the Somalian janitor would have an acceptable standard of living. He'd be less wealthy than the Somalian plastic surgeon, but at least he'd have a pickup truck and three squares a day.

"Personally, no. I have no met any 'rich folk'. I have read about them though, and the stories seem believable. Many people inherit their parent's businesses."

What are they, silverback gorillas?

"All though I am sure it is possible in a capitalistic society to 'pull yourself' to a higher level; Not everyone can do it."

Whereas in a collectivist society, it's not possible for anyone.

"This is a fact. After the United States finished helping Afghanistan fight off the Soviets, it left it there, without any more support. The country could have at least been polite."

First of all, countries can't do things like "be polite." They're countries, not people. Second of all, I still don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the economy of Afghanistan became dependent on the monthly shipment of American stinger missles to the mujahideen in the mountains, and when we stopped sending them arms to shoot down Red choppers the children started starving?

"I'm not doing that. You said 'You See?'. That's stating that you're asking me if 'I see' why capitalism is good. I'm just saying, NO, I don't see. I don't like Capitalism. I don't want to 'see' it."

Okay, okay, so instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la," you're covering your eyes and saying "la la la." And by the way, I didn't ask you if "you see" that "capitalism is good." It's that kind of black-and-white thinking on your part that probably has prevented you from learning anything.

(Edited by reagan lives at 8:33 pm on July 27, 2002)

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from reagan lives on 5:07 pm on July 27, 2002
"first of all before I answer what you were saying. That is exactley why the capitalist here aren't respected. you call me dumbass and shit like that? Have some class man. Damn I'm just talking here, when I insult you first then insult me back. You don't need to start acting like that ok."

Oh, please be my friend.

"So then we don't put any money into the military, please tell me if I took you correctly."

OK, I'll walk you through this. The US government spends a large part of the tax revenue it collects on defense. How exactly does it spend that money? Does it build B-1 bombers out of $100 bills? No, it gives contracts to domestic defense manufacturers. The money gets recycled into the economy. The government takes money out of the economy, it puts the money back in, and a helicopter gets built. Capitalism at work. Also, if you look around you right now, many of the wonderful things you're surrounded by are actually military innovations that were then made commercially available. The computer you're using to read this, for example.

"PLease then explain to me why I'm wrong. Do you think Bush is a man who actually had to work as hard as those people who actualy earned their way to be as sucessful as him?"

I'm not saying anything about Bush's personal life, because I don't know anything about it. All I'm saying is that you don't know anything about it either, but you insist on acting like you do. Your statements are all based on stereotypes and conjecture. They're stereotypes and conjectures that most people are willing to believe, but that doesn't make them any more credible.

"I don't want to steal your money I want to help other people."

But your moral justification for that was that a "person making $300,000" is somehow less entitled to his money than a person making less.

"Rather than paying people for nothing we should get them jobs so they can pay for themselves."

We're in agreement.








but haven't you been using sterotypes by saying I want to steal your money? You know nothing of my personal life or belies, yet you assume what I believe. Exactley what I did to Bush.

and its true I know very little about his personal life but come on we both know his Father's name hasn't exactley hindered him.

But all that money from taxes doesn't need to be spended on the military. Not saying a military is unnecassary. However we don't need to focus on it so greatly.

>>>But your moral justification for that was that a "person making $300,000" is somehow less entitled to his money than a person making less. <<<

sorry I meant that as a justification for why Rich people don't need tax cuts.

I'm glad we are in agreement that people should be working. Which is why Socialism is good.

welfare is a quick fix and it does no one good especially children on welfare. But the government doesn't want to fix the problem, they want to hide it.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Guest on 6:36 pm on July 27, 2002
Military is the only justifiable use of public fund. Theprotection of rights, including property, wealth, ect. They could even be used as a moral force to free people from rules that govern their freedoms in other places, but the confused politicians in our country and those the represent have no moral backbone and can't fight to free a nation when our nation itself has been taken over by the establishment.
Military is the most import ant and originally the only reason for social contract. My point is not that a man who makes 300,000 would starve if the goventment stole his money, it is that government has no moral, philosophical, or legal right to do so, and when it does it has became socialist, no free.



your making no sense. who the hell is stealing peoples money. You pay taxes in a capitalist society don't you? I was reffering to taxes. I will be more clear next time.

Also the military has no buisness fighting in other nations unless it directly effects us.

[Lardlad95]

>>>What if I don't like my job? What if I want to be a lawyer instead of a construction worker?<<<


which is exactley why the program I believe is key to a socialist society is one that helps pick a job suited to you and get you the education for that particular job.

of course in the case of a lawyer you would have to work odd jobs as you went to law school.

Besides that someone is always gonna need a quick job so the menial ones will be constantly filled. Not to mention people who aren't smart enough to get a higher position.

[reagan lives]

When did I say I thought you wanted to steal my money?

And as for your government job placement program and your ideas about filling "menial" jobs with "people who aren't smart enough," congratulations on writing the most totalitarian thing I've read since I've been back.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from reagan lives on 11:04 pm on July 27, 2002
When did I say I thought you wanted to steal my money?

And as for your government job placement program and your ideas about filling "menial" jobs with "people who aren't smart enough," congratulations on writing the most totalitarian thing I've read since I've been back.

oh I'm sorry. I didn't mean the people had to fill the jobs because they weren't smart enough. I meant people who wouldn't be able to become lawyers or doctors.

Also something I explained about this when I first got here.

I am not forcing them into the jobs. ITs a temporary fix until they find a job they do like.

No one is forced to work a menial job against their will.

However if you wish not to go bankrupt you probably would take odd jobs until you found one suited to you.

The placement program is to find you a permanant job and set you up with a temporary one until you find a permanant job.

Also people can get education.

I apologize for making it sound totalitarian.

[Lardlad95]

I'm so sorry for sounding like that. I got a little careless.

I don't want to make people work jobs they don't want or need to do.

[Xvall]

Wrong, I am sure that it has happened. You hide from history by claiming that it wan't Drake-approved communism, and that therefore it shouldn't count. I say that totalitarianism, poverty, and abject disaster are necessary consequences of ANY COLLECTIVIST NATIONAL SYSTEM, no matter what sort of window dressings you want to put on it. So yeah, we have a disagreement. But I have history and reality on my side of the disagreement, while you have your own delusions.

Well, that's your opinion. Unfortunately we both don't share it. Is that even in your vocabulary? SHARE?

What if I don't like my job? What if I want to be a lawyer instead of a construction worker?

You can request that. I should have been more specific. Everyone will be insured with a job that they enjoy.

That's right. Now if they had a proper capitalist system, it wouldn't be so hard. And before long the Somalian janitor would have an acceptable standard of living. He'd be less wealthy than the Somalian plastic surgeon, but at least he'd have a pickup truck and three squares a day.

Ya, I'm in agreement on that. They have very 'improper' capitalism. But I still don't like capitalism.

What are they, silverback gorillas?

No, but they act like them. So territorial.

Whereas in a collectivist society, it's not possible for anyone.

The goal of a collectivist society would not be to make everyone rich, or put anyone at a higher level. Instead, it is attempting to make sure that no one is poor, starving, etc.

First of all, countries can't do things like "be polite." They're countries, not people. Second of all, I still don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that the economy of Afghanistan became dependent on the monthly shipment of American stinger missles to the mujahideen in the mountains, and when we stopped sending them arms to shoot down Red choppers the children started starving?

No, you stopped giving them funding and weapons when the Soviets left. And after that, they were left with feuding warlords. Instead of trying to install some sort of 'democratic' system, you just left them. And let the warlords do as they please.

Okay, okay, so instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la," you're covering your eyes and saying "la la la." And by the way, I didn't ask you if "you see" that "capitalism is good." It's that kind of black-and-white thinking on your part that probably has prevented you from learning anything.

Stop trying to insult me Ronald. I'm begining to grow less fond of you. I 'see' your damn point, but I DON'T LIKE IT! Kay?

[Guest]

You didn't pay tAXES WHEN WE HAD A FREE MARKET. oNCE IT TURNED TO A MIXED ONE WE LOST OUR FREEDOM TO DETERMINE THE CONTROL OF OUR FINANCES OURSELVES. Sorry forgot caps lock. I am saying the only thing I am willing to pay for is protection from the majority. If you want to pay to help people or organize progams good for you, I might even decide to help. But when it is regulated, as it is now (my reason for hating the establishment) I will reject laws telling me to help. It is a choice, and I'll chose for myself whether to help or not.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from Guest on 10:54 pm on July 28, 2002
You didn't pay tAXES WHEN WE HAD A FREE MARKET. oNCE IT TURNED TO A MIXED ONE WE LOST OUR FREEDOM TO DETERMINE THE CONTROL OF OUR FINANCES OURSELVES. Sorry forgot caps lock. I am saying the only thing I am willing to pay for is protection from the majority. If you want to pay to help people or organize progams good for you, I might even decide to help. But when it is regulated, as it is now (my reason for hating the establishment) I will reject laws telling me to help. It is a choice, and I'll chose for myself whether to help or not.

what mixed economy? The government doesn't own anycompanies.

Also its regulated so that things like Enron don't happen.

Also to make sure workers are fairly treated.

Only regulated to make sure they obey laws not directing them.

[The Guest]

If you can't see the unspoken connection big business/ government/ media then what do you think the problems of the world are? We are a mixed economy, government owns plenty of pulic businesses that are socially oriented. Government Social programs = socialistic mixed economy with government involvement in the the private sector.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from The Guest on 11:20 pm on July 28, 2002
If you can't see the unspoken connection big business/ government/ media then what do you think the problems of the world are? We are a mixed economy, government owns plenty of pulic businesses that are socially oriented. Government Social programs = socialistic mixed economy with government involvement in the the private sector.


first of all glad to see you joined. Nice name.

The thing is thoguh that a government always is involved with its people. Ie Social programs.

However a program isn't a buisness. Welfare generates no money.

The fact is the government doesn't have anybody making sure that buisness are doing fair buinsess.

No the governemnt stands idley by while the companies do what ever the hell they want.

Not to mention the fact that that in a socialist country the government would own industries. IE natural resources instead of letting individuals sell them.

[The Guest]

Government holds many lands with unused resources, along with putting out bonds as a market. Government is all over business, and it is not necessary. Businesses are supply and demand. You don't like them then don't buy their stuff. They lose demand unless they give in. You don't have to buy anybodies product, you can create your own. Education is key, but by legalizing a monopoly over the education system, giving all children the same mindless curiculum(sp), you allow the government to destroy the minds of children to follow a majority rule. If the kids are taught to doubt themselves (you don't need to do it it will be provided) they will cling to others. Government has no place in social issues. Those are for society. People in a society can't all agree to the same morals and if givernment becomes the determiner of right and wrong the individual has seized to exist. The only protections you have are your individual rights; property (physical or intangible), life (but not to demand that others support it, and other such self-evident truths.

[maoist3]

"Talk left and live right" the original post says by way
of criticizing communists and all on the proletarian side
of class struggle.

These funny "love it or leave it" types are always
good for a laugh. As soon as they start living
the real free market capitalist life of unregulated
meats, unregulated drugs, lies about cigarettes, doctors practicing whatever they want for profit etc. all the reactionaries will be dead in a couple weeks. Then we that they call"left" can "talk" whatever we want and go to socialism peacefully without "leaving" anything. Yes, it is us of the proletarian side of the
class struggle that has saved your rightists' lives
millions and millions of times. We get a little tired of it
though. Maybe one of these days nukes will fall,
and we won't be able to do anything about it to even
save our "leftist" lives, thanks to the people in power.

I suggest you go read some Upton Sinclair and figure
out that you wouldn't be hear talking at all if we
had let you capitalist-minded people run amok.


(Edited by maoist3 at 1:47 pm on Aug. 5, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

what mixed economy? The government doesn't own anycompanies.

Also its regulated so that things like Enron don't happen.

Also to make sure workers are fairly treated.

Only regulated to make sure they obey laws not directing them.

I suggest you pick up an economics book, Lardlad. Siting economies of scale, government has allowed certain industry giants to maintain monopolies with direct government oversite. Fact is, we live in a mixed economy here in the US. Other examples include a progressive income tax and socialized K-12 public schooling. The evidence of a socialist hybrid economy is abundantly clear to anyone who is not extremely tainted by Marxist ideology.